I have more evidence from Hislop's book on the ties between Nimrod and the names of Greek gods.

Hislop uses a lot of semantic comparisons and assumptions.

But what does it really prove?
We already know that --

1. Cush is generally credited as being the father of the people in Ethiopia, Sudan. Ethiopia and Nubian empires flourished. It is also said they had occupied the east side of the Red Sea, Arabia, as well.
2. Cush had at least six sons, all which contributed to the population and the building of nations.

Hislop makes Cush the bad guy.
But that raises the question as to why did Noah curse Ham's fourth son, Caanan, not Cush, who was Ham's firstborn.
Why single out Caanan? (Ham was the the one who showed disrespect that called forth the curse) Why, if all this paganism originated with Cush and Nimrod, didn't Noah place the curse on Cush if we are to believe he is the father of idolatry?

3. Nimrod is described in the Bible as "he began to be a mighty one in the earth".
So obviously he was a rebellious tyrant. Over-riding the patriarchal system of organization and trying to unite the various family tribes under one rule. He is a real person in the Biblical narrative. That's not being question.
He was a descendant of Cush (though some, due to the fact he wasn't listed in the first list of Cush's sons, think that he may of been a grandson or even great grandson of Cush)

He, Nimrod, was hugely instrumental in the Babel building ambitions.

4. "Mighty men" are often elevated to "godhood" after their death, along with a lot of legends and myths embellishing their supposed heroic actions. So why be surprised if his name appears amongst the many "gods"?

Yet, that doesn't prove the legends are the truth.


.

How do we know that all this "paganism" doesn't have it's roots in the culture before the flood?

This comes from Egyptian mythology.

The Egyptians had what is called "The Great Ennead of gods" which supposedly was recognized in quite a few civilizations.
They had "Atum, or Atum-Ra" the supreme creator "god". (he evolved into a sun god, but seems to have first held a truer position)

Then they had the "earth god" Geb, and the "sky god" Nut.
Adam being formed from the earth was reinvented into Geb, Eve was wrested out of Adam and somehow became the sky goddess. Both of them are often depicted in connection with snakes.

Four "gods" came from Geb and Nut
Osiris and Seth (both male) and Isis and Nephthys. (both female)
Osiris and Isis became a couple who were considered the gods that ruled Egypt

The "god" Seth, a brother of Osiris is his enemy. Seth fights against snakes, marries Nephthys, and kills Osiris, but Osiris resurrects.

Isis give birth to Horus from the seed of Osiris. Osiris experienced a tragic death and miraculous resurrection which provided the basis of the ancient Egyptian mysteries.

Now Hislop takes Isis and Osiris and puts them as prove it began with Nimrod and the fictitious Semiramus story. But there is plenty of proof this all began before the flood and was both a mixture of the creation story, and an evil twisting of the Bible story.

I would think Osiris represents Cain, who was also a "mighty man" building cities, and establishing a central kingdom.. (Or just a general grouping of the descendants of Cain) Isis probably representing Cain's wife (or the beautiful, enticing, daughters of Cain in general)

Seth representing Cain's brother Seth, is portrayed as the enemy in the legends. Because he struggles against evil, his character is twisted as the "killer", Yet the Bible shows that when he first comes to manhood and has descendants of his own, we read that people started to serve the Lord, "then began men to call upon the name of the LORD. " so it shows he makes progress in repelling evil, but Cain's way rises again --

So all these "gods" are mythical, based on some historic events or people.
We see them not just after the flood, but being revived from before the flood.

The whole "god, goddesses" thing, are counterfeits, twisted counterfeits, of truth. Stories that take God's truth and twists them to make evil good, and good evil.

Of course there was paganism before the flood, Think Cain worshiped God? Why do you think it flourished so soon
after the flood? It was just another form of it established by different people.

Here is Ellen Whites comments on Genesis 6:11 in the SDA Bible Commentaries



Cush was an evil man or he would not have done what he did to Noah. He most likely had a drinking problem himself or he would not have mocked his own Godly father for passing out drunk. Human beings mock and ridicule in others the same faults they themselves have because putting down others makes them feel better about themselves and their own problems. Been there and done that.

Why would an Egyptian god have represented someone who lived before the flood who wasn't a current hero for leading the world in rebelling against God? That makes zero sense to me.

Why does God inspire men to do as they do? I can't always figure that out. In fact only rarely can I figure that out.



One last thing. Hislop gives evidence for his assertions about pagan gods. I see none coming from you.

Wow! We actually agree on this point!! Yes, of course! Of course there was paganism before the flood,!!!!
Cain was the first to start the open rebellion! Yet, I'm sure you realize that according to the Bible, Cain did sort of worship God in the beginning, just not the way God had asked for the worship to be done, he wanted to do it his way, and when Abel was honored by God and he wasn't, he was mad! Cain was well informed about the true God. But from that point on it appears he threw all his efforts into defying God. And yes, by the time of Noah evil was well nigh universal.

Not sure that after the flood it was revived "in a different form" rather think it was revived in it's old forum and of course evolved over the centuries into different forms..


Not sure if this was just an oversight, or what, but it was actually HAM, the father of Cush and Caanan who was very disrespectful of Noah in the moment of Noah's weakness. (Gen. 9:20-25)
There is nothing in the Bible that says Cush was an evil man (though he may have been).

But that's why I wonder why Noah---
1. Didn't place the curse on Ham
2. Didn't place the curse on Ham's first son, Cush if he really was that evil
3. But placed the curse on Caanan, Ham's fourth son.
The name Caanan is rather close to Cain. Was Ham dreaming of the "olden days" before the flood when he named his fourth son? The Caananites were so wicked God rained fire on them in Sodom and Gomorrah.

If you are referring to the Egyptian Ennead of gods, -- you can find that information in many places. I took it from a book "The Orion Mystery" written by R. Bauval and A. Gilbert, two men who spent a lot of time in Egypt studying the Pyramids and researching the meaning of it all.
Of course, I don't believe everything in that book either -- they think Egypt had a long primitive history before the fourth dynasty when it suddenly sprung into amazing power and accomplishments.
I agree with the springing into amazing power and accomplishments, but not in a long primitive history before that. It sprang into amazing power pretty soon after the flood.



Possibly because they accepted a preflood belief that these "gods' had ascended to the stars and now hoped or thought these gods could give them the knowledge the preflood civilization had. And that like them, they too would ascend to the stars when they died.

The Egyptian pyramids are a mystery to many to this day. When we believe the Bible timelines, we realize those pyramids were built within the first century or two after the flood. (The fourth dynasty is the time when the great pyramids were built) They were built by people with tremendous knowledge of geometry, knowledge as to how to harness the energy of the earth to lift enormous weights, and knowledge of the stars. In other words, they were probably built in the days of Noah's grandsons. Cush, Mizraim, and Phut, and their immediate descendants, probably with Ham's instruction and knowledge which he brought with him from before the flood.

Though some deny it, the four main pyramids are aligned with the belt of Orion.
They have interesting shafts in the pyramids that point to particular stars, supposedly for the dead to ascend and launch out to their star, to join the realms of the gods.
Sirus, the dog star, had the shaft from the queen's chamber directed at it.

Orion = Osiris' star
Sirus = Isis' star

Osiris and Isis together produce a son -- Horus, but it seems he had to be continuously born, or conceived, as the Egyptian kings were thought to be worldly incarnations of Horus, obtaining total deification in death.

Cush, Mizraim, and Phut, and others of that long lived generation (500 years), don't seem to be the actual kings, they were probably off mapping the world and overseeing the building of more pyramids in various places like South America etc. planting settlements, and organizing a vast communication system that would hold the world in touch with each other.
Meanwhile Nimrod and company is building the grand control tower -- which when it was damaged and languages were confused, the whole communication system collapsed and all those outlying communities were left on their own.

(That last part was mixing Noorbergen's ideas into the possibilities)

Of course there are things we agree on. I've never said there isn't.

Where did you get the idea that I said the paganism after the flood was of a different form? I said it was the same only started by different people. Thus the people would worship their fallen leaders as they knew them personally and the leaders who succeeded them had a vested interest in promoting them to help enforce their own authority.

So you'll accept statements by what I assume are non Christians on paganism but not a Christian's statements supported by ancient historians? Why?

Why are entire peoples named after Cush, Mizraaim and Phut if they weren't actually around and leading their people? It would be the descendants of those leaders whom the people would claim their as their progenitors as they would have been the ones the people followed.

I just don't follow a lot of your reasoning.

I have more from Hislop,



Who is Hesychius? A Greek grammarian. Hislop is quoting a major authority on the Greek language as the source for his assertions.

https://www.britannica.com/biography/Hesychius-of-Alexandria

Another one of Hislop's sources for information was Aristophanes. Who was he? One of ancient Greece's most famous comedy writers.

http://www.apgrd.ox.ac.uk/learning/an-introduction-to/an-introduction-to-aristophanes

Another one of his sources was Pausanius, Who was he? A well known Greek geographer who wrote what was the first known Greek travel guide.

https://www.theoi.com/Text/Pausanias1A.html

Another one of Hislop's sources was a guy named Bunsen. Who was he? A German scholar.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Charles_Josias_von_Bunsen

Another one of Hislop's sources was Dionysios. Unfortunately he gives us no other clues to as to his identity as there were several Dionysius' in ancient Greece. Almost all of them were highly educated like the rest of Hislop's sources.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dionysius

This is by no means all of Hislop's sources but it tells us as lot about the type of sources he used to make his assertions. He used highly educated sources upon which to base his assertions. His is therefore a reliable source of ancient historical pagan information.

Have you actually checked out his sources, as in reading the context from which his quotes were taken?
Even in the quote you gave above I see big jumps in logic.
It's rather obvious to me that Hislop came up with an hypothesis and then scoured everything to pick snippets and phrases that he could use to support his hypothese.

As to where did I get the idea that you said the paganism after the flood was of a different form?
Well, when you said,
"Why would an Egyptian god have represented someone who lived before the flood who wasn't a current hero for leading the world in rebelling against God? That makes zero sense to me.

Obviously, you don't believe they revived the old beliefs, but set out to develop their own from scratch.


As to Cush, Mizraaim and Phut having nations named after is because they FOUNDED those nations. They set them up --
However, the kings actually on the throne, were pharoah's. The fourth dynasty only lasted about 130 years according to historians and had about six different pharaohs.
History and Bible(as in a lot of history that long ago) just don't match here. I tend to think the long lived grandsons of Noah were the founders and they had people rule under them during that period. Of course that all changed in later centuries.

So even that I told you previously that the paganism before and after the flood were the same but started by different people you take your own ideas and ignore my positive statement denying that and assert them denying what I said. The following quote comes from a post of mine earlier on this page of the thread.



You've gotten very insulting in this thread. I just don't understand it as I've never seen you behave like this before toward anyone.
.

I'm sorry if I misunderstood you, I have had absolutely NO INTENTION OF INSULTING YOU. And I've told you that before but guess what??? you don't believe me.

Your accusations surprise me!
Actually I've been quite perplexed about your reactions. Why would you be insulted?
O.K. I wrote "Not sure that after the flood it was revived "in a different form" rather think it was revived in it's old form and of course evolved over the centuries into different forms." Yes, that was my own thought.

There was nothing in that statement to insult you. It was simply stating my understanding that they were carrying on the same preflood forms, not something new.

Well maybe I got the following wrong as well, for I'm under the impression that in the last three or four pages of posts you've held out with Hislop's idea that paganism started with Nimrod/Semiramis and Cush. Isn't that correct?

I've disagreed all along, and now more fully shared a different view -- that paganism is actually a counterfeit of the Bible story and it started before the flood.

(I'm assuming from your posts) that you continue to promote the Nimrod/Semiramis and Cush, theme of Hislop as the correct history of early forms of paganism, --
In my mind that is a different form of paganism, even if you said it was the same form.
Maybe I need to ask, what do you mean by "the same form"?

What you are saying is confusing to me. It would be nice if you'd explain yourself in relation to the subject, instead of being insulted.

For in my mind Hislop is promoting A DIFFERENT form of paganism.
The preflood/Egyptian form perverted the Biblical story. It's a counterfeit religion. Hislop's elevates Nimrod and Semiramis as the originators of paganism, based totally on evil.

Counterfeits, on the other hand, are deceptive, based on false and deceptive theology.

In the end of course, the result is the same -- the True God is rejected. Is that what you meant?


If my "own ideas" conflict with yours, that doesn't mean I'm insulting you.
Please don't downgrade "my ideas" as insulting.
If I ask questions it's because I have questions which would help me understand where you are coming from. Just saying something is the same, when it doesn't seem to match what else I'm hearing, just means there is confusion in processing what you mean.
I can't read your mind -- so don't always know why you are posting what you are as it doesn't always match the flow of conversation. Remember, I can't read your mind, and typed words also lack tone of voice and facial expression and are often read wrong.

I'm really sorry you continually see so many things as insulting you.
Maybe you need to find your value in God, then every little perceived misunderstanding won't insult you, because you know you are valuable to God, and also that the other person is valuable to God. And I'm not saying that to insult you, but because I know it works!